Jones v. 32, 113. Harsant v. Crane, 202. Hepworth, Ramsbothain and Others v. 20. Heslon v. McGeorge, 310. Holdsworth, Williams v. 114. --, Williams and Others v. 175. Holmes v. Moss, 40. Holt v. New, 310. Hooper v. Gresham Life Assurance Society LAD, BURRILL v. 186. Levy v. Moylan and Others, 3. Lewis v. Hughes, 317. Lythgoe, East Anglican Railway Company v. 86. M. MACKENZIE v. THOMAS, 314. Main v. Doubleday, 288. Mann v. Driffield, 317. Mansell, re, 313. Marrs, re, 10. Mason, Sayse v. 175. Matthews v. Dodwell, 287. -, re, 9. Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Pen- zance, James and Others v. 67. McGeorge, Heslop v. 310. Mens v. Benshall, 121. P. PADGHAM v. BARTON, 13. Palmer v. Gibbings, 236. Richards, 174. Parker v. Bristol and Exeter Railway Com- pany, 61. Great Western Railway, 286. Parkinson, Armstrong v. 282. -, Jones v. 90. Pretyman v. Ventris, 68. Pritchard and Another, Woodcock v. 253. Q. QUEEN, THE, LAVEY v. 258. R. RADCLIFFE v. CASELEY, 66. Rawson v London and North Western Rayner, Cook v. 318. Rebbeck, re, 175. Room v. Cottam, 6. Wheatley and Another, 89. Rose, Gates v. 289. Ross, Smith v. 288. Rouse, Parker v. 66. Munier v. Whateley and Smith, 7. Murril, re, 38, 39. Myers v. Cranfield, 15. NARDIN AND v. Smith, 265. N. ANOTHER v. FAIR- Nelson, Stevens v. 40. Sayse v. Mason, 175. BANK, 6. New, Holt v. 310. Nicklin v. Sims, 17. 0. O'NEILL, re, 58. Breese v. 146. S. SANDERLAND v. WALTERS, 287. Seaman, Cross v. 143. Seymour v. Rhodes, 18. Skinner v. Lambert, 34. DIGEST OF COUNTY COURTS CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME, EXCLUSIVE OF INSOLVENCY. ACTION. Notice of, under local acts, 182. Form of An action for damage done to a house occupied by the defendant as tenant, should be in tort, and not on contract. Ramsbotham v. Hepworth, 20. An action for damages and dilapidations to a farmhouse occupied by the defendants is wrongly brought in "tort." Taylor v. Hall, 183. It appeared by the plaint and particulars in an action in the County Court, that the cause of action was stated to be for "having assaulted the wife of the plaintiff, and maliciously charged her with stealing a shawl," &c.: Held, that this was a proceeding for a malicious prosecution, and not an assault, and that prohibition ought to go. Ex parte Carrey, 201. AFFIDAVIT. In suggestion, 6. AGREEMENT. Stamp on, 227. APPEAL. The audit clerk of a railway company, under an agreement for 1401. a year, determinable by three months' notice or payment of three months' salary, was improperly dismissed without notice; and being sued by the company for moneys in his hands belonging to them, claimed to set-off the three months' salary to be paid under the agreement upon an improper dismissal without notice: Held, that he was entitled to set it off: Held also, that the question whether the cause alleged for the dismissal, viz., the disclosure, to the prejudice of his employers, of facts acquired by virtue of his employment, was a question of fact, and not the subject of appeal under the County Court Extension Act. Quare, whether the decision of a County Court judge, in case where there is no jury, upon a question of fact mixed up with law, is the subject of appeal under the County Court Extension Act. East Anglian Railway Company, v. Lythgoe, 86. The clerk has absolute power to determine whether the sureties for the costs of an appeal required by the 21st section of the Extension Act are sufficient. The court will not compel the clerk to furnish the defendant in the appeal, with the names and particulars of the sureties. Clarke v. Stancliffe, 154. F. brought his plaint in the County Court to recover from C. the sum of 341. 128 1d. balance due for goods sold and delivered. C. relied on the Statute of Limitations to defeat the claim. The goods were sold in 1842; and, in order to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, F. relied mainly on a letter from C. dated April 25, 1845, the material parts of which were as follow:-" I must candidly tell you once for all, I never shall be able to pay you in cash, but you may have any of the goods we have at the Pantechnicon, by paying the expenses incurred thereon, without which they cannot be taken out." A witness was also called by F. who proved that in 1844 he had an interview with C. respecting the debt, when accounts were stated, and the balance now sued for was admitted to be due; and that in March, 1845, it was agreed that F. should take goods belonging to C. from the Pantechinicon: that goods were selected for that purpose, but C, failed to forward them. The plaint was tried without a jury; and the judge, considering the letter and the above evidence sufficient to bar the Statute of Limitations, gave judgment for F. (the plaintiff below.) On appeal, the court reversed the decision, and gave judgment for C. (the defendant below), with costs of the appeal. Observations on the question whether an appeal lies from the County Court in cases where neither party calls for a jury and the judge is left to decide on both law and fact. In appeal cases from the County Court (the chief justice being excluded by the statute from the hearing of them) the court will simply give judgment, without stating reasons for the conclusion it has arrived at, in like man. ner as in cases where it is called upon to review the decisions of commissioners of taxes. Cawley v. Furnell, 197. ARBITRATION. A lay arbitrator, under a submission, which provided that the costs of the submission and award should be in the discretion of the arbitrator, awarded to himself an excessive amount of remuneration. The The court, unless compelled by very clear and strong evidence, will not sanction a contract made by an attorney with a party introducing him to business upon condition that he should share in the costs: Held, that an attorney defendant may retain counsel in a County Court in his own cause, and upon judgment being given in his favour that full costs may be allowed, including the attorney's expenses as a professional man. Foreman v. Richards, 11. An attorney is entitled to reasonable fees for work done and advice given in relation to a suit in the County Court, and he is not restricted in his charges for this by the provisions of the County Courts Act. 15. 38. held, in certain circumstances, to be a reasonable charge. Lamb v. Graham, 119. Attorneys' bills must be sent in, in reasonable time for taxation of costs, or will not be allowed as a set-off. Jarman v. Sparrow, 121. Rule nisi obtained by plaintiff against his own attorney to discontinue an action, and pay all costs of an action brought in the Superior Court, when his instructions were to sue in the County Court. Holt v. New, 38. In this court (Marylebone), the practice of Liability of, for costs of, as witness, 316. AUTHORS. Contributions to periodicals, 18. BAILIFF. Liability of. If a high bailiff upon a reasonable and bonâ fide belief that he is acting within his jurisdiction, he is entitled to notice of action, under the provisions of the County Court Act. Booth v. Clive, 63. Action against.-An action of trespass was brought against the high bailiff of the court and one of his officers to recover compensation for wrongful levy. The evidence showed that the officer made a demand for payment of a sum of 11. for which judgment had been given against a stranger to the plaintiff. The court held that as the clerk of the court had not been joined as a defendant as directed by the County Courts Amendment Act, the plaintiff must be nonsuited. Townsend v. Warner, 233. Complaint against, 43. BALANCE OF ACCOUNT. A. sued B. in this court for 351. In his particulars he gave credit for certain payments on account. The jury, at the trial, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 167. On a motion for a suggestion: Held, that the cause of action was under 20%, and that the words "balance of account" mean, balance after giving credit for payments. Turner v. Bailey, 6. BANK. Circumstances under which a depositor in a bank was held to be entitled to recover money paid to the bank by a customer, although no entry or memorandum of the receipt of the money could be found in the books of the bank, nor was any such payment remembered by any of the clerks. Watts v. Union Bank of London 185. BEERHOUSE. Held, that the liabilities of innkeepers towards their guests do not extend to the lodgers of beer shop keepers. Mathews v. Dodwell, 287. BUILDING SOCIETY. A Building Society can recover in the County Court the arrears of ground rent of premises mortgaged to them by the defendant. Harsant v. Crane, 202. The mortgage deed to a building society, demised to the trustees of the society, to permit the mortgagor to receive the rents and profits until default in payment, &c., and contained a clause whereby the mortgagor agreed to become tenant to the trustees of the premises henceforth during their will and pleasure, at the rent of 121., payable quarterly: Held, upon the authority of Walker v. Giles (6 C. B. 662,) that the tenancy clause must be rejected, as inconsistent with the clause for quiet enjoyment. Held, also, upon the autho rity of Jones v. Owen (5 D. & L. 669,) that the 22nd section of the County Courts Act does not apply to the case of mortgagor and mortgagee, and, therefore, that the County Court had no jurisdiction to deliver possession to the trustees under that section. Thomas v. Mackenzie, 314. Jurisdiction of court over mortgage to, &c. 314. CARRIER. A carrier is liable only for the safe custody of goods entrusted to him up to the period of their delivery to the consignee. Therefore, where a cask of treacle was sent to a grocer, and he requested the carrier's servant to place it in the cellar, and in doing so the cask broke and the contents were spilled: Held, that this being no part of the duty of the carrier, and the delivery being previously complete, he was not responsible for the loss so occasioned. Shepherd v. Lancaster and Carlisle Rail way Company, 41. A party riding in a public conveyance, feeling aggrieved at the arrangements, quitted it, and taking a cab for the rest of the journey, sued for the cab hire: Held, that it could not be recovered. Mould v. Wilson, 120. The 12 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 68, does not exempt carriers from responsibility for loss of any of the articles mentioned in the first section of that act, when such articles have been delivered to the carrier's servant in a cart in the street, or elsewhere than at one of the offices, warehouses, or receiving-houses in which the notice required by the second section is affixed. Per Parke, Alderson, Platt, and Martin, BB. Pollock, C.B., dissentiente. Hart v. Baxendale, 281. See RAILWAY. CAUSE OF ACTION. Goods were ordered by defendant at the plaintiff's shop to be sent by railway to the defendant's residence. The goods were delivered at the railway, and by the railway company conveyed to the defendant. Neither the plaintiff's shop nor the railway station were within the A. district of the County Court, within which the defendant's residence was situated: Held, that the cause of action did not arise in any material point within the district A. De Porquet v. Bury, 57. When balance of account under 207., 6. Joinder of, 264. Sect. 16 of the County Courts Extension Act enacts, "that no judgment, order, or determination given or made by any judge of a County Court, nor any cause or matter brought before him, or pending in his court, shall be removed by appeal, motion, writ of error, certiorari, or otherwise, into any other court whatever, save and except in the manner and according to the provisions hereinbefore mentioned." And sect. 2. of the same act enacts that this and the General County Courts Act shall be construed as one: Held, that the first-mentioned section is to be construed with reference to sect. 90 of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, and that the certiorari is not thereby taken away or limited to cases within the former jurisdiction. Jones v. Holdsworth, 35. Certiorari is not taken away by the recent County Court Extension Act (13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 16.) When application is made to a judge of one of the superior courts at chambers for it, he should be put in possession of all the facts, the situation of the parties, and the stage of the cause, so as to be enabled properly to exercise the discretion given by 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 90. Parker v. Bristol and Exeter Railway Company, 61. Certiorari issuing to remove a County Court judgment into a Superior Court, for the purpose of suing out an execution upon it from the Superior Court, pursuant to the powers given by the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 22. Copeman v. Gladden, 62. The certiorari is not taken away by the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 16 (County Courts Extension Act.) It is sufficient to serve the writ of certiorari at the office of the chief clerk. Brookman v. Wenham, 62. The 21st section of the County Courts Act provides the method of removing actions of replevin in certain cases to the Superior Courts: 1st, the party desiring to remove shall declare to the court that. the title to a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament, &c., is in question, or that the rent or damage for which the distress is made is more than 201; 2ndly, he shall become bound with two sureties, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such sum as the judge shall deem reasonable, to prosecute the suit with effect, &c., then, and not otherwise, the suit may be removed: Held, that these things are to be done in the order mentioned in the above section, and where, on the defendant presenting a writ of certiorari, the judge refused to receive the declaration and to proceed to name the amount of sureties, &c., a rule for an attachment was made absolute against him for disobeying the certiorari: Held, also, that the above declaration may be made by an agent. Mungeam v. Wheatley, 89. COMMITMENT. Warrant of. The warrant of commitment stated that the plaintiff had wilfully insulted the judge, who thereupon ordered him to be taken into custody, and proceeded "these are therefore to require you," &c., to deliver him to the keeper of the house of correction, &c.: Held, that the warrant was good,-that it was not necessary to state what the insult was; and that the word "therefore" did not render the warrant uncertain, and, in |